Theory and Practice of Muslim State in India c6.s2: 2.2. The Government

Theory and Practice of Muslim State in India c6.s2

Language: English

2.2. The Government

c6.s2.1

By the quick conquest of the lands of Persia and Egypt the Arabians came into possession of the earliest seats of civilization in the whole world. "In art and architecture, in philosophy, in medicine, in science and literature, in government, the original Arabians had nothing to teach and everything to learn." The Arabs were an observant race. With sharp curiosity these Muslim Arabians, with the help of their subject peoples turned Muslim, began to assimilate, adopt and reproduce the latter's intellectual and aesthetic heritage. In Damascus, Jerusalem and Alexandria, they admired and copied the work of the architect and the artisan. "Throughout the whole period of the Caliphate the Syrians, the Persians, the Egyptians and others as Moslem converts or as Christians and Jews, were the foremost bearers of the (Islamic) torch of enlightenment and learning." Even India acted as an early source of inspiration, especially in wisdom, literature and mathematics. But Persian influence pinned down Arab Islam as it were. Gradually Persian titles, Persian wines and wives, Persian ideas and thoughts won the day. The Caliphate became a replica of Iranian despotism.65 In two fields only did the Arabian hold his own: Islam remained the religion of the state and Arabic continued to be the official language. Belief in the paramount superiority of the Arabic language is an article of faith among Muslims.

c6.s2.2

*Evolution of Administrative Institutions*

c6.s2.3

The administrative system of Islam had evolved gradually. In Arabia, in its earliest stages, the problem was to provide the new converts to Islam with subsistence. They were indigent and poor, and to help them, poor tax (*zakat*), voluntary contributions, and war booty (*ghanaim*) formed the revenue of the state at the start. Muhammad was followed (632 CE) by a succession of Caliphs at Madinah.66 According to Mawardi (who wrote in the fifth century of Islam), the Imamate, or Caliphate, was divinely ordained and the Caliph inherited all the powers and privileges of the Prophet.67 The institutions which developed under the Caliph became models of governance in the world of Islam. The Caliph Muawiyah (661-89 CE) transformed the republican Caliphate into a monarchy and created a governing class of leading Arab tribes.68 These two institutions - kingship and nobility - became an integral part of Islamic polity.

c6.s2.4

After the Umayyad came the Abbasid Caliphs. They established their capital in the newly built city of Baghdad. The Abbasids came under the irresistible influence of superior Persian culture and Persian institutions. The Abbasid dynasty lasted for full five centuries (752-1258 CE) and under it different branches of administrative machinery were greatly elaborated and new departments and offices created. The Quran contained almost nothing that may be called civic or state legislation. So also is the case with Hadis. There are very few references to government and administration in the Hadis. This lacuna was filled by Persian theories and practices. Persian court etiquette, Persian army organisation and administrative system were all adopted and developed under the Abbasids.

c6.s2.5

The Turks brought these institutions into India, adding some more offices and institutions while keeping the core intact. Muslim administration had evolved in Muslim lands through centuries and was highly developed before it was brought to India by the Turkish sultans. At the head was the monarch or Sultan. He appointed and was assisted by a number of ministers. A brief list of ministers and officers will give an idea of the framework of the central administration. At the top were four important ministers (and ministries) which formed the four pillars of the State.⁶⁹ These were Wazir (Diwan-i-Wazarat), Ariz-i-Mumalik (Diwan-i-Arz), Diwan-i-Insha and Diwan-i-Rasalat. The Wazir was the Prime Minister who looked after the revenue administration. Ariz-i-Mumalik or Diwan-i-Arz was head of the army. He was known as Mir Bakhshi under the Mughals and was the inspector-general and paymaster-general of the army. Diwan-i-Insha was incharge of royal correspondence, and Diwan-i-Rasalat of foreign affairs and pious foundations. Sadr-i-Jahan, also called Sadr-us-Sudur, was the Chief Qazi. Under him was placed the justice Department. There were officers of the royal household like Wakil-i-Dar (Chief Secretary), Amir-i-Hajib (Master of Ceremonies) and Barbak, 'the tongue of the sultan', whose duty it was to present petitions of the people to the king. There were dozens of other officers and hundreds of subordinates both in the Central administration and in the *Subahs* or provinces.

c6.s2.6

The Central government was formed on the Persian model As seen above, the Prime Minister was called Wazir and his ministry Diwan-i-Wazarat. All Muslim political thinkers attached great, importance to this office. Abu Daud says that a good wazir is an asset. When Allah wants to destroy some ruler, he gives him a bad wazir.⁷⁰ Fakhr-i-Mudabbir and Ziyauddin Barani who were scholars of Islamic scriptures, say the same thing.⁷¹ The main business of the Wazir who presided over Diwan-i-Wazarat was finance, although he oversaw most of the affairs of the state. "Agriculture, Building, Charitable institutions, Intelligence Department, the Karkhanas and the Mint were all directly or indirectly under the Diwan-i-Wazarat.⁷² Next in importance was the Diwan-i-Arz under the Ariz-i-Mumalik. He was the controller-general of the military department.⁷³ Muslim state introduced two new elements in Indian polity. it brought in a new law - the Shariat law. Secondly, it was based on military force. Formerly, under Hindu kings, state power was subject to numerous customary and constitutional restraints. Muslim state in India found its support solely in military force. Its Chief Commander was the King; its administrative commander was the Ariz-i-Mumalik (Mir Bakshi of the Mughals). As said earlier, the Diwan-i-Insha dealt with the correspondence between the Sultan and the local governments, including all correspondence of a confidential nature. The Diwan-i-Rasalat, as the term indicates,⁷⁴ looked after diplomatic correspondence, and as such this ministry was a counterpart of the present-day foreign office.

c6.s2.7

The Diwan-i-Qaza, or the Department of justice, was presided over by the Chief Qazi. Administration of Islamic justice was given a special place of importance in the Muslim state. We have devoted a separate chapter to it. One department of considerable importance was that of the Barid-i-Mumalik who was the head of the State Information Bureau. Through this department, the centre was kept informed of all that was happening all over the empire. A network of news agents or intelligencers was spread out in all localities. They acted both as secret information agents as well as open news reporters. There were also a large number of spies in every place and chiefly in the houses of the nobles to report their affairs to the Sultan. Espionage played a very important role in Islamic autocracy.

c6.s2.8

The king's court, palace and household also had an elaborate administrative set up of its own.⁷⁵ The provincial government was a miniature replica of the central. The governors were called Walis and Muqtis. An expert in accounts called Sahib-i-Diwan was appointed in each province. He kept the local revenue records and submitted them to the Wazir. The army maintained by the governors and garrison commanders was subject to control and inspection by the provincial Ariz, who was responsible to the central government. Similarly, administrative arrangement of *parganas*, *shiqqs* and later *sarkars* was also clearly laid down. During the Mughal period, some new offices were created while nomenclatures of some others were changed.⁷⁶ The administrative system also got the stamping of the Chingezi Yasas and the Institutes of Timur.⁷⁷

c6.s2.9

But the core of administration remained Islamic. Just as the administrative system implanted in India had evolved in Iran and adjoining Islamic countries, important administrators also came from these regions to run it. This rendered the administration exotic and prompted Bernier to declare that the Mughal was a foreigner in India. The Mughal empire brought into existence and maintained for a century and a half (1556-1707) a bureaucracy, mainly Mughal, Turk and Afghan, and partly Rajput, with strong vested interest in Mughal imperialism. During this period and thereafter, the disparity in standards of living not only between the higher and lower strata of the ruling class but also between the higher officials and average citizens, became so pronounced that a deep gulf yawned between the people and the bureaucracy, isolating the latter and turning it into a separate class essentially alien and foreign in outlook from the masses.

c6.s2.10

*The Sovereign*

c6.s2.11

The sovereign in the Muslim state was called Amir, Sultan, Badshah or Shahanshah. He personified the will of the Muslim people, a people who have been one of the greatest empire builders. It is said that during the time of the Prophet the word sultan was never used in the sense in which it is used or understood today. In the Quran the term sultan is vague and occurs in the abstract sense of "Power, Authority".⁷⁸ Since the institution of sultan or king came from Persia, there is not much in the Quran about it. But there are quite a few *ahadis* which mention the institution of sultan and advocate unflinching loyalty to him. Quoting a hadis from Muslim, al-Khatib-ul-Umari, the author of *Mishkat-ul-Sharif* writes that "the Rasul said if one obeys me, he obeys Allah; if he disobeys me, he disobeys Allah; one who was obedient to the Amir was obedient to me and one who was disobedient to the Amir was disobedient to me".⁷⁹ There should be affection and respect between the Hakim and his subjects. Those who create dissensions between the community and the ruler and between ruler and ruler should be killed.⁸⁰ No community can remain coalesced without a leader. Such was the importance given to the leader by the Prophet that he ordained that if three men were going on a mission, they should choose one of them as the leader.⁸¹ In course of time as the numbers of Muslims increased, obedience to the leader became an imperative necessity and there are many *ahadis* advocating unflinching loyalty to the sultan who alone could be leader of warriors engaged in expansionist wars (glorified as the Holy jihad). The idea of this loyalty is elaborately expounded in many *ahadis*. It is laid down that even if a Habshi *ghulam* is appointed as the Hakim, even if he be a mutilated *ghulam* whose ears and nose have been cut off, is appointed as the ruler, he is to be given unflinching obedience. A *hadis* says: "One who obeys me (the Prophet) obeys God; one who shows insubordination to me shows disobedience to Allah."⁸² Such declarations frightened the poor, ignorant Muslims. "Badshah is the shadow of God on earth." Every oppressed person looks to him for justice. He is responsible for the well-being of his subjects. When the king is unjust and he commits a sin, his subjects should be patient towards him. They should not curse him but obey him without demur.⁸³ Because if a Muslim strays away from the community even a wee bit, he will be destroyed. The Muslims should stay together as a group (*Jamaat*), as a community, under the leadership of the king.⁸⁴ For a Muslim king was not only expected to be a true Muslim himself; he was required to see that all his subjects were true Muslims and the dignity of Islam and Islamic laws was upheld by them.

c6.s2.12

When this model of sultan came in contact with Persian Sassanid polity, writes K.A. Nizami, "many servile forms of Sassanid court were adopted as legitimate substitutes for the earlier democratic practice of *bay't*". But the fact is that contrary to the assertion of Nizami, ahadis were not "manufactured to cast a halo round the person of the sultan."⁸⁵ The idea of Commander, Leader, Hakim or Sultan is many times given by all collectors of Hadis. Besides, there is no democracy involved in *bay't*. It is true that early Muslims ate with Muhammad, they prayed with him in the mosque. However, the relationship thrown up throughout the works of Hadis, is that of master and suppliant; there was not to question why; there was but to do as directed. There is no word for 'democracy' in Islam. In modern times the Arabs use the Greek word *dimuqraatiya*. Following upon the Muslim tradition the monarch was known as sultan during the early Muslim rule in India. This appellation was continued till it was replaced by Babur who took the title of Padshah. Thus sultan was the accepted title when the Turks conquered and set up a Muslim state in Hindustan. Before this Muslims had set up empires in many parts of the world. Empire building and ruling effectively in accordance with the precepts of the Shariat was in the logic of the history of Islam and this could be accomplished only by a sultan. The sultan was usually a strong warrior, often without a peer in strength. He gathered a strong army, collected taxes and contributions and was surrounded by counsellors. They bestowed upon him attributes of divinity, upon his subjects those of devilry, thus making his presence in the world a sort of a benediction necessary for the good of mankind. Once man was declared to be bad and the king full of virtues, there was hardly any difficulty for political philosophy and religion to recommend strict control of the people by the sultan.⁸⁶

c6.s2.13

In the *Siyasat Nama*, Nizm-ul-Mulk Tusi stressed that since the kings were divinely appointed, "they must always keep the subjects in such a position that they know their stations and never remove the ring of servitude from their ears."⁸⁷ Alberuni, Fakhr-i-Mudabbir, Amir Khusrau, Ziyauddin Barani and Shams Siraj Afif repeat the same idea.⁸⁸ As Fakhr-i-Mudabbir puts it, "If there were no kings, men would devour one another."⁸⁹ Even the liberal Allama Abul Fazl could not think beyond this: "if royalty did not exist, the storm of strife would never subside, nor selfish ambition disappear. Mankind (is) under the burden of lawlessness and lust…".⁹⁰

c6.s2.14

In this context it would be pertinent to point out that there were monarchs both in the West and the East and in both autocracy reigned supreme. Still in the West they could wrest a Magna Carta from the king as early as in 1215 CE and produce thinkers like Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau, Montesqueue and Bentham who helped change the concept of kingship in course of time. But in Islam, a rigid, narrow and limited scriptural education could parrot-like repeat only one political theory - man was nasty, brutish and short and must be kept suppressed. So that when in England they wrested power by executing the king after a long civil war (1641-49), in India Shahjahan, a contemporary of Charles I, ruled as an autocrat and his reign is called a 'golden age'. The history of Islam is witness to the fact that autocracy and Islam are more natural allies than democracy and Islam. "The glitter of gems and gold in the Taj Mahal or the Peacock Throne," writes Jadunath Sarkar, "ought not to blind us to the fact that in Mughal India, man was considered vile; - the mass of the people had no economic liberty, no indefeasible right to justice or personal freedom, when their oppressor was a noble or high official or landowner; political rights were not dreamt of... The Government was in effect despotism..."⁹¹ Consequently, medieval Muslim political opinion could recommend only repression of man and glorification of king.

c6.s2.15

The king was divinely ordained. Abul Fazl says: "No dignity is higher in the eyes of God than royalty... Royalty is a light emanating from God, and a ray from the sun, the illuminator of the universe."⁹² Kingship thus became the most general and permanent of institutions of medieval Muslim world. In theory Islam claims to stand for equality of men, in practice it encourages slavery and imposes an inferior status on non-Muslims. In theory Islam does not recognize kingship; in practice Muslims have been found to be servile to authority. Muhammadans themselves were impressed with the concept of power and glamour associated with monarchy. The idea of despotism, of concentration of power, penetrated medieval mind with facility, and obedience to the ruler was advocated as a religious duty.

c6.s2.16

The duties and obligations of a Muslim monarch were clearly laid out for him by religious and political works, traditions and precedents. The Shariat, the four schools of Islamic law, works of political theorist like al-Mawardi's *Ahkam-us-Sultaniyah* and Nizamul Mulk Tusi's *Siyasat Namah*, the actual working of the Abbasid Caliphate running into more than five centuries, and the exploits of Muslims from Prophet Muhammad to Mahmud of Ghazni, had combined to lay down a code of private and public conduct for Muslim monarchs. Works of Indian Muslim political theorists and historians like Fakhr-i-Mudabbir's *Adab-ut-Harb*, Ziyauddin Barani's *Fatwa-i-Jahandari* and *Tarikh-i-Firoz Shahi* and later on *Fatawa-i-Alamgiri* and similar other works too constantly repeat the principles and ideals to be followed by a Muslim king.

c6.s2.17

In his personal life, the Muslim king was expected to be God fearing and pious. He was to say his prayers five times a day and observe the fasts of Ramzan. According to Barani he was expected to live the life of a common soldier, drawing from the public treasury the same salary as he gave to his soldiers (elsewhere he recommends him to live with magnificence and keep a large harem which would add to his dignity). By his words, acts and movements, his personal qualities and behaviour he was to appear to live and also enable people to live according to the laws of the Shariat.⁹³ In public life, the Muslim monarch was enjoined to discharge a host of civil, military and religious duties. The sultan was expected to be the refuge of the suffering and the oppressed. He was to impart justice in accordance with the requisites of the Shariat. He was to levy taxes according to the law and appoint honest and efficient officers "so that the laws of the Shariat might be enforced through them."⁹⁴ At times he was to enact *zawabits* (regulations) to suit a particular situation, but while doing so, he could not transgress the Shariat nor "alter the law".⁹⁵ His military duties were to defend Muslim territories, to guard its frontiers by garrisoning the forts, make preparations for war, and to keep his army well equipped and ever on the alert for conquest and extension of the territories of Islam.⁹⁶

c6.s2.18

Thus religious and political thinkers had gone on multiplying the duties of a Muslim monarch, presenting him with an unmanageable agenda. Obviously the king could not possibly follow all their injunctions. In such a situation there was adjustment and accommodation between precept and practice. If a sultan could not follow these behests in their entirety, this in no way compromised his status or weaken his position. The rulers who tried to live like true Muslims, are highly praised by their contemporaries. But those who did not, are not blamed or decried. Often the ulema overlook; many even justify their not-so-Islamic actions and habits. Ziyauddin Barani is very liberal with regard to such aberrations. He says: "If the king's faith in the religion of the Prophet is firm and unshakable, then there is no harm if he is not excessively given to his religious devotions and cannot fulfil the supererogatory duties prescribed with regard to fasting and prayer." Similarly, "If there is no fault or defect in the religious beliefs of the king, the enjoyments and pleasures in which he indulges as a human being are forgiven to him out of consideration for his firm faith ... (and) the sins due to his human nature are erased from the records of his life."⁹⁷ Not only enjoyments and sins due to human nature were forgiven, the ulema, chroniclers and clericals, indeed all custodians of medieval publicity media, admired the large harems, the extravagance, the grandeur and the magnificence of the monarch. This mode of living raised his stature and strengthened his position in public eye. But in this the ulema went too far and exhibited a vacuum in the process of their thinking. While drinking of wine by a monarch was perhaps rightly overlooked, there was no redressal suggested even when he turned out to be a tyrant. There was no remedy recommended except to pray for change of his heart.

c6.s2.19

In short, the mainspring of Muslim regime was monarchy individual rulers may have been unsafe, but the institution was permanent; no other kind of system was envisaged.⁹⁸ Since the institution was not vulnerable, kingship tended to be despotic, and even tyrannical. Within this framework it had variables. However, by and large, royalty was autocratic, and imperialistic, tempered only by revolution or fear of revolution. Cruelty and terror, strength and force, conquest and annexationism, glory and grandeur were its hallmarks.

c6.s2.20

What does Barani mean by statements like "If the king's faith in the religion of the Prophet is firm," or "If there is no fault in the king's religious beliefs," to earn him immunity from punishment for all sinful acts? It means *that* Muslim monarch who subserves the interests of his religion in its true spirit. In the Islamic religion human beings are divided into two distinct entities - Muslims and infidels. Citizenship rights are given to Muslims only, non-Muslims at the most can be given the status of Zimmis or second class citizens. For, Allah raises some people (*qaums*) and he degrades others.99 Momins are favoured by God and infidels are denounced. Muslims should always help one another. Protection of life and property of one momin is incumbent upon another momin. Abusing or killing of a Muslim by another Muslim is *kufr*. Hadis exhort the Muslims: "Do not loot another Muslim". "One who will kill another Muslim, Allah will throw him in Perdition face down."100 But the treatment meted out to an infidel should be just the opposite of it, because the two are different from one another in the eyes of Allah and his prophet. The Hadis say to Muslims: If you meet fire-worshippers and idolaters, do not wish them. If an infidel falls ill, do not visit him to enquire about his health; if he dies, don't accompany his bier.101 A Kafir dies. His heir becomes Muslim. This Muslim is not to honour the *wasiat* (wish/will) of his Kafir father.102 The Zimmi cannot be a witness against a Muslim; he cannot be the guardian of his child who is a Muslim.103

c6.s2.21

"In the words of the Hanafi jurist Sarakhsi (d. 483/1090) the word of a dishonest Muslim is more valuable than that of an honest dhimmi."104 Muslim religious literature and sufi hagiography overflow with such ideas. As if this discrimination was not enough, there are many ahadis and ayats of the Quran asking Muslims to kill Kafirs outright. Islamic scriptures recommend setting Muslims against non-Muslims, believers against infidels - to defend Islam and destroy unbelief. Individual and group killings of Kafirs are encouraged. One who kills a Kafir is given the latter's property. Khalid bin Walid said that the Prophet ordained that the property of the killed belonged to the killer; [it was not to be taken into account for khams]. In the Battle of Hunain, Abu Talha killed twenty Kafirs and got their goods.¹⁰⁵ There are still more bloody instructions about group killings of Kafirs, but of this in the next chapter on Jihad.

c6.s2.22

A Muslim monarch was expected to carry out all these directions of the Quran and Hadis. In Islamic scriptures the primary duty of every good Muslim king, indeed of every devout Muslim, is to fight religious war or Jihad against the infidels. But the duty of propagating Islam and carrying on Jihad mainly devolved on the sultan. Since there is Jihad till idolatry is destroyed, Jihad was the monarch's most important duty.¹⁰⁶ It is a great sin for a Muslim to shirk the battle against non-believers - those who do will roast in hell. Ziyauddin Barani had this idea of a good religious Muslim monarch the sultan even if he was unable to extirpate infidelity he must at least keep the enemies of God and his prophet dishonoured and humiliated.¹⁰⁷

c6.s2.23

Footnotes:

c6.s2.24

¹ History of Aurangzib, vol. III, pp. 269-97.

c6.s2.25

² Some Aspects of Muslim Administration, p. 2.

c6.s2.26

³ Life and Conditions of the People of Hindustan, pp. 138-42.

c6.s2.27

⁴ Dictionary of Islam, p. 711.

c6.s2.28

⁵ Luzac & Co., London, 1913-34, vol. I, p. 259.

c6.s2.29

⁶ Tripathi, op. cit., p. 2.

c6.s2.30

⁷ The Administration of the Sultanate of Delhi, p. 41.

c6.s2.31

⁸ Cf. Peter Hardy in Philips, Historians of India, Pakistan and Ceylon, p. 302.

c6.s2.32

⁹ Introduction to the English trs. of Ziyauddin Barani's Fatawa-i-Jahandari, p. vi.

c6.s2.33

¹⁰ Concise Oxford Dictionary and Chambers Twentieth Century Dictionary.

c6.s2.34

¹¹ P.K. Hitti, History of the Arabs, (London, 1951), p. 117.

c6.s2.35

¹² Nizami, Religion and Politics, p. 15.

c6.s2.36

¹³ Arnold and Guillume (ed.), The Legacy of Islam, p. 286.

c6.s2.37

¹⁴ Qureshi, op. cit., p. 41.

c6.s2.38

¹⁵ Ibn Hasan, The Central Structure of the Mughal Empire, pp. 255-56.

c6.s2.39

¹⁶ Ibid., p. 258.

c6.s2.40

¹⁷ Quran VIII, 39-40; English trs. by George Sale, p. 172; Jadunath Sarkar, Aurangzib, vol. III, p. 249.

c6.s2.41

¹⁸ Quran IX, 5, 6; Sale, p. 179.

c6.s2.42

¹⁹ P.K. Hitti, History of the Arabs, pp. 177, 179.

c6.s2.43

²⁰ This aspect has been discussed by me in some detail in my Growth of Muslim Population in Medieval India, pp. 187-190.

c6.s2.44

²¹ Farishtah, trs. Briggs, vol. II, pp. 230-32.

c6.s2.45

²² Journal of the Bombay Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society, vol. XXII, p. 28.

c6.s2.46

²³ Babur Nama, vol. II, p. 484.

c6.s2.47

²⁴ The Book of Duarte Barbosa, vol. I, p. 202.

c6.s2.48

²⁵ Ain., Jarret, vol. III, p. 8 and note by J. Sarkar.

c6.s2.49

²⁶ Badaoni, vol. II, p. 246.

c6.s2.50

²⁷ Barani, pp. 262-64; 295-96

c6.s2.51

²⁸ Barani, Fatawa-i-Jahandari, pp. 39, 64.

c6.s2.52

²⁹ Akbar Nama, vol. II, p. 316.

c6.s2.53

³⁰ Du Jarric, p. 75.

c6.s2.54

³¹ Sri Ram Sharma, Religious policy of the Mughal Emperors, pp. 19-20.

c6.s2.55

³² Ibn Majah, II, p. 101, ahadis. 307-8.

c6.s2.56

³³ Badaoni, vol. II, p. 391; Sharma, p. 21.

c6.s2.57

³⁴ Badaoni, vol. II, p. 317.

c6.s2.58

³⁵ Badaoni, vol. II, p. 273. Also E.D. vol. IV, p. 547 note.

c6.s2.59

³⁶ Badaoni, vol. II, p. 307.

c6.s2.60

³⁷ Ibid., p. 211. This paragraph has been reproduced from my essay "Akbar's Din-i-Ilahi" published in Lal, Studies in Medieval Indian History, p. 236.

c6.s2.61

³⁸ Badaoni, Persian text, Calcutta, 1865, vol. II, p. 257.

c6.s2.62

³⁹ Ibid., p. 258.

c6.s2.63

⁴⁰ Ibid., pp. 261-62, 303.

c6.s2.64

⁴¹ Tuzuk, vol. I, pp. 244-45.

c6.s2.65

⁴² Eg. Ashoka's Twelfth Rock-Edict advocates respect for all creeds. "King Devanampriya Priyadarshin is honouring all sects... promotion of essentials of all sects should take place... neither praising one's own sect nor blaming other sects should take place... Concord is alone meritorious."

c6.s2.66

Emperor Ashoka's Eighth Pillar Edict also says, "Persuasion be still Ashoka's ways... I value inward inspiration."

c6.s2.67

Quoted in Om Prakash, Religion and Society in Ancient India, p. 10.

c6.s2.68

43 Ibn Warraq, p. 119.

c6.s2.69

44 A. J. Toynbee, One World and India, p. 19.

c6.s2.70

45 For details Lal, Twilight, pp. 190-94.

c6.s2.71

46 Babur Nama, vol. II, pp. 554-55.

c6.s2.72

47 Ibid., p. 340, Also Archaeological Survey Report, XII, pp. 26-27. Sri Ram Sharma. The Religious policy of the Mughal Emperors, p. 9.

c6.s2.73

48 The alleged Will was brought to the notice of scholars by the Government of Bhopal (Central India) at one of the meetings of the Indian Historical Records Commission, vide Indian Review 1923 and The Twentieth Century, Allahabad, January, 1936. The controversy about its genuineness would require a pamphlet to be written. The latest information comes from the Librarian of the Sultania Library, Bhopal, who says that 'no such document was available', vide R. Nath, 'The Lost Testament', The Times of India, Review, New Delhi, 5 December, 1993.

c6.s2.74

Dr. Gopi Chand Varma, writing in the Rajasthan Patrika, Jaipur, dated 27 April 1997, on the controversy of Babur's Wasiatnama or Will has raised some new points and made some fresh suggestions. He writes that Babur's Will (Wasiatnama) is supposed to have been written on Jamad-ul-Avval 935 H (11 January 1529). From then on up to 1857, for 328 years, it does not find a mention in any Persian history; Babur too has not referred to it in his own Tuzuk-i-Baburi. Varma asks: Why did he not say so in his memoirs? Babur wrote his memoirs in Turki, why is this Wasiatnama written in Persian? He asks many more such questions.

c6.s2.75

According to him, "The Wasiatnama was not written by Babur, but by a group of Muslims during the Khilafat movement. They had realised that if the Khilafat movement was to succeed, it was possible only through the cooperation and participation of Hindus. Therefore, in December 1919 the Muslim League passed a resolution putting a ban on the slaughter of cows." Babur's supposed exhortation not to destroy shrines of peoples of other faiths, says Varma, also coincides with the attempt by the League at Hindu-Muslim cooperation during the Khilafat agitation. "This belief becomes amply clear from its motives - that the Will was written by interested Muslims in 1919 and not by Babur in 1529. It was placed in Sultania State Library of Bhopal where its secrecy and security could be ensured. But when the Khalifa in Turkey was removed and there the institution of Khilafat was abolished [on 3 March 1924], there was no sense in preserving the document any more. That is why this forged and supposed (jali aur farzi) Wasiatnama was removed from the Bhopal library as secretly as it was placed there."

c6.s2.76

A point has been made by Gopi Chand Varma. What value should be attached to it is an open question.

c6.s2.77

⁴⁹ Abbas Sarwani, E.D. vol. IV, pp. 410-424. Also Rizqullah, p. 549.

c6.s2.78

⁵⁰ Sharma, op. cit., pp. 10-11.

c6.s2.79

⁵¹ Ain., vol. I, P. 164.

c6.s2.80

⁵² All the above facts have been mentioned by S.R. Sharma in his The Religious policy of the Mughal Emperors, pp. 7-19, quoting original Persian sources.

c6.s2.81

⁵³ Ibid., p. 39.

c6.s2.82

⁵⁴ Tuzuk, vol. I, p. 254.

c6.s2.83

⁵⁵ Pelsaert, p. 75.

c6.s2.84

⁵⁶ Ain., vol. I, pp. 398-99 and note; Tuzuk, vol. I, pp. 224-225 note.

c6.s2.85

⁵⁷ Tuzuk, Ibid., p. 320.

c6.s2.86

⁵⁸ V.A. Smith, Akbar the Great Mogul, p. 233. Smith writes on the authority of Du Jarric, vol. III, p. 133. Also Sharma, op. cit., p. 61 quoting Mulla Ahmad, pp. 1, 2, 46.

c6.s2.87

⁵⁹ Tripathi, op. cit., p. 56.

c6.s2.88

⁶⁰ Afif, p. 29.

c6.s2.89

⁶¹ Sharafuddin Yazdi, Zafar Nama, II, p. 15.

c6.s2.90

⁶² Badaoni, p. 306.

c6.s2.91

⁶³ Qureshi, op. cit., p. 41.

c6.s2.92

⁶⁴ Kingsley Davis, The Population of India and Pakistan, p. 191.

c6.s2.93

⁶⁵ P.K. Hitti, The Arabs, p. 53, 83, 89.

c6.s2.94

⁶⁶ But as the Muslim empire expanded, Muawiyah founded the line of Umayyad Caliphs at Damascus (661 CE). The Abbasids who succeeded them, became Caliphs at Baghdad (750 CE) and Samarra (836 CE). Another line of Umayyad Caliphs ruled at Cordova or Qurtuba (756 CE). The Fatamid Caliphs were rulers in Cairo upto 1751 and the Ayyubids up to 1836.

c6.s2.95

⁶⁷ Ruben Levy, The Social Structure of Islam, p. 284.

c6.s2.96

⁶⁸ M. Habib, Introduction to Elliot and Dowson's History of India as told by its own Historians, Aligarh reprint, 1952, vol. II, p. 6.

c6.s2.97

⁶⁹ Barani, p. 153.

c6.s2.98

⁷⁰ Sunan Abu Daud, vol. II, pp. 458-591 hadis 1158.

c6.s2.99

71 Fatawa-i-Jahandari, p. 10; Adab-ul-Harb, British Museum Ms. fol. 52(a).

c6.s2.100

72 Lal, History of the Khaljis, p. 157.

c6.s2.101

73 For qualities of Ariz, see Fatawa-i-Jahandari, p. 24.

c6.s2.102

74 Steingass, Persian English Dictionary, p. 574.

c6.s2.103

75 For its important officers see my Legacy of Muslim Rule, p. 140.

c6.s2.104

76 Ain, I, pp. 5-6.

c6.s2.105

77 Tripathi, R.P., Some Aspects of Muslim Administration, pp. 105-124.

c6.s2.106

78 Arnold, The Caliphate, p. 202

c6.s2.107

79 Mishkat-ul Sharif, vol. II, p. 5,

c6.s2.108

80 Ibid., pp. 5, 7, 9.

c6.s2.109

81 Mishkat, vol. II, p. 56.

c6.s2.110

82 Sunan ibn Majah, vol. I, P. 32, hadis 3.

c6.s2.111

83 Ibid., vol. I, p. 43, vol. II, pp. 190-93, ahadis 637-39, 641, 649; Mishkat-ul-Sharif, vol. II, pp. 5, 15-16 quoting ahadis from Muslim and Bukhari.

c6.s2.112

84 Mishkat, vol. II, p. 6.

c6.s2.113

85 K.A. Nizimi, Religion and Politics, pp. 95-96 and n. 4.

c6.s2.114

86 Fazl bin Ruzbahan al-Isfani's Suluk-ul-Muluk, Barani's Fatawa-i-Jahandari and Khusrau's Nub Sipiher as summarised by I.H. Qureshi, Administration of the Sultanate of Delhi, p. 47. Also Nizami, p. 110 n.

c6.s2.115

⁸⁷ Cited in Bosworth, The Ghaznavids, p. 49.

c6.s2.116

⁸⁸ Alberuni, vol. II, p. 161. Also Barani, Fatawa-i-Jahandari

c6.s2.117

⁸⁹ Fakhr-i-Mudabbir, Tarikh-i-Fakhruddin Mubarak Shah, p. 13.

c6.s2.118

⁹⁰ Ain, vol. I, p. 2.

c6.s2.119

⁹¹ Sarkar, A Short History of Aurangzib, p. 464.

c6.s2.120

⁹² Ain, vol. I, pp. 2-3, 6.

c6.s2.121

⁹³ Barani, pp. 293-294.

c6.s2.122

⁹⁴ Barani, p. 64.

c6.s2.123

⁹⁵ Barani, Fatawa-i-Jahandari, p. 73.

c6.s2.124

⁹⁶ Fakhr-i-Mudabbir, Adab-ul-Harb, fols. 132b-133a.

c6.s2.125

⁹⁷ Barani, Fatawa-i-Jahandari, Advice II, pp. 2-3.

c6.s2.126

⁹⁸ Babur cites the example of Bengal, which of course was applicable to all Muslim rulers. "The royal office is permanent and there are permanent offices of amirs, wazirs (etc.)... Any person who (even) kills the ruler and seats himself on the throne, becomes ruler himself; amirs, wazirs, soldiers and peasants submit to him, at once. (They) say 'we are faithful to the throne; we loyally obey whoever occupies it'." Babur Nama, pp. 482-83.

Cites (6)

al-Fatāwā al-ʿĀlamgīriyya — Arabic
Muntakhab al-tawārīkh — ʿAbd al-Qādir Badāʾūnī 1590, Persian
Tāj al-maʾāthir — Ḥasan Niẓāmī, Persian
تحقيق ما للهند من مقولة مقبولة في العقل أو مرذولة — Arabic
Tārīkh-i Fīrūzshāhī — Shams-i Sirāj ʿAfīf, Persian
Fatāwā-yi jahāndārī — Ḍiyāʾ al-Dīn Baranī